LAWS(KAR)-2005-7-48

TUKARAM GANU PAWAR Vs. CHANDRA ATMA PAWAR

Decided On July 08, 2005
TUKARAM GANU PAWAR Appellant
V/S
CHANDRA ATMA PAWAR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the defendant in the suit. The appellant contends that he is the owner of the land in RS No. 231/2b measuring 7 acres 29 guntas in Kokatanur Village, Athani Taluk, belgaum District. Out of this extent of land, it is the contention of the appellant, that 2 acres 23 guntas was mortgaged with a Bank, it is his case that he is an illiterate and aged person and for the purpose of availing the loan he had taken the assistance of the respondent, who is his nephew, for the preparation of the papers seeking extension of loan. It is alleged that the respondent had surreptitiously obtained his signatures on an agreement of sale in respect of the land measuring 2 acres 23 guntas while preparing the documentation for the loan as aforesaid. It is this agreement, which is set up by him in the suit seeking specific performance and with an interlocutory application seeking temporary injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with his possession. The Trial Court having granted the prayed for temporary injunction, the appellant is before this Court.

(2.) THE contentions of the appellant are as follows.

(3.) THE next contention is that under the agreement of sale, which is dated 20-8-1999, possession is said to have been delivered in respect of the land. When this is so, the stamp duty attracted in respect of such an agreement evidencing delivery of possession, is as provided with effect from 15-4-1995, under Article 5 (e) read with Article 20 of the Schedule to the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Stamp Act' ). The requisite stamp duty as prescribed not having been paid, it is his contention that Under Sections 33 and 34 of the Stamp Act and the judgments rendered by this Court in the case of KB, Jayaram v. Navineethamma AIR2003 Kant 241 , AIR2003 KAR 241 , 2003 (3 )Karlj225 and in the case of Jayalakshmi Reddy v. Thippanna ILR2002 KAR 5163 , 2003 (5)Karlj263 , the agreement could not have been looked into by the Trial Court for purposes of consideration of the application for temporary injunction.